Palmer made a point of how a significant chunk of the Kickstarter is going to pay back advance money on loan from her family to do the project. The flow of capital within her family (read Neil) toward the project and her fans paying it back made any discussion about family wealth fair game in this.

Reading over her disbursement message a few days back, she really didn't any hope to repay the $250K advance from her family (again, Neil)if it only earned the target $100K. If Amanda has other family outside of the already wealthy Neil that can float her $250K with no realistic potential of getting paid back, she's practically in Romney territory compared to most working musicians and has no business asking anyone to do any pro work for free.

It is utter bullshit for her to claim she needed to repay the $250K off the top of the 1.1 Million when her original target was just $100K. Where was the repayment in her original budget? The more I think about this the more it stinks.

She's not asking people to do this for nothing, but for merchandise and, presumably, a ticket as well as beer. Now if you sit down and work this out (Which I've done quickly) that would be $25 for a t-shirt and $25 for the ticket plus however much the beer would have cost (Say $5). Now assuming anyone involved isn't going to declare this as tax as no money has changed hands. If they got paid cash (If they are self employed) in the UK the way you are taxed they would have to be paid about $88 to get the same value for money, if that makes sense.

Edited to say I'm not claiming that all artists should be paid for their time in this way by any means, but there is a cash value to the payment even if no cash is changing hands.

My assumption, maybe wrong, is that this was aimed at competent hobbyists who are also fans, so being paid in kind the equivalent of $88 doesn't sound like a bad payday for an afternoon and a couple of songs.

However I think she made a big PR mistake by stating she'll pay people at the more high profile gigs.

I had completely disregarded any of the "but her husband's a millionaire!" stuff because it took the focus away from Palmer's business practice with this project; but:

Palmer made a point of how a significant chunk of the Kickstarter is going to pay back advance money on loan from her family to do the project. The flow of capital within her family (read Neil) toward the project and her fans paying it back made any discussion about family wealth fair game in this.

Reading over her disbursement message a few days back, she really didn't any hope to repay the $250K advance from her family (again, Neil)if it only earned the target $100K

Now we're assuming it was Neil who bank rolled her and I can understand how, if you're living in a "but your husband's a millionaire!" world you'd want to pay the loan back so as to stand on your own two feet - but - if Plan A was to pay it back later she certainly had a lot of options with her initial budget (and expected sales revenue) and, for me, it further highlights her poor business decisions.

But, what’s interesting about this is – this exactly what record companies do! (The difference being the family don’t hold her copyright)

In many cases you sign with a record label and get a million dollar deal – but - that’s a loan that pays for album production, music videos etc. The artist then turns over money from the tour/sales to pay back the costs of production and any other advances.

So – we’re making a music industry of the future! – Where nothing’s changed and you can be independent so long as your family is wealthy enough to support your artistic endeavors! HAZZAR!

(Also, if the money was fronted by a record company I can’t imagine there’d be much of a debate surrounding the use of session musicians getting paid in kind while other session musicians get paid in full)

We are not privy to any details other that those we've specifically been given. Even if the bookkeeping is suspect, which it may be, we don't have enough information to know for sure.

I'm out of this conversation. I've said my piece, and no one is planning on changing their minds since there's obviously a giant conspiracy at foot to bilk people out of an afternooon's worth of "work".

I have to say, putting work in scare quotes like that -- making it "work" and suggesting it really isn't, is a pathetic note to leave on.

Performing is work, as has already been noted, it's one of those pesky details we do know about. So suggesting semi-and-pro musicians rehearsing and playing for a T-shirt and a beer alongside fully paid musicians for a paying audience aren't really working on top is just another shitty thing on top of being taken advantage of.

Also, "We are not privy to any details other that those we've specifically been given."

Obvious man is obvious, I guess, but we can boil down the details we've specifically been given to this: Palmer launched a Kickstarter for 100k and later added this project was already owing 250K. Were repaying the 250K a required commitment for this project, the target needed to be 350K. It's fair say the 250K didn't need to be repaid immediately (and wouldn't have were she to have only raised the 100K Kickstarter goal) and out of that chunk she took off the top of the 1.1 million she could have easily allotted the 35K for the musicians for the whole tour.

Even without speculation of who floated her the money in the first place, it still stinks.

I don't quite see that, there are plenty of Kickstarter projects that aim to raise enough money to finish a product whose sale will then pay back other investors. Though it's yet more speculation, suppose she looked at the available funds/debts and laid out an "ideal" plan that happened not to have those musicians at some of the venues. Maybe she could get by with a laptop filling them in, whatever. Personally I'd feel pretty weird in her shoes, looking out into an audience knowing it contains people who could be making the show better, and would be happier doing so than watching.

So here's a question I have, a bit of a tangent but it keeps with the theme.

Burning Man. What are people's thoughts on Burning Man given that:1) All participants bring their own food and entertainment, no commerce is allowed, people set up their own theme camps and offer organize their own events. I think people who help actually set up the city infrastructure get discounts/free tickets, as do some Black Rock Rangers.2) Tickets run about $300+ these days.3) Artists who bring installations and musicians who perform get no discount. They pay full tickets, and bring their art out there. Many artists spend the better part of a year putting their installation together. Similarly, the people who run the theme camps (which is where the events take place) get no compensation.4) Some artists gets grants if they submit an application. Not all artists do and grants don't always cover full costs. Musical performers get no grants, as they are for physical structures only.5) Contrary to what many believe, Burning Man is a for profit LLC and founder Larry Harvey makes something like $100k+ annually, if what I was told is correct.

In short, BM founder makes a profit from people bring paying to bring their art out to a week long camping festival. Yes, MOST of the money from tickets goes towards paying for the BLM permit, renting the porta potties, the construction vehicles to lay down the infrastructure, and given that none of the artists get paid, no one gets caught in that "wait why am I the only person not getting paid?" scenario Oldhat mentioned. It also goes towards paying the salary of the people working at the BM San Francisco offices, who spend all year long organizing the event and filing all the proper paperwork for it to happen. I'm honestly not sure how much of that Larry Harvey even still does or if all he even does these days is make up each year's theme, I don't know. But at the end of it all, regardless of how much work he does, there is a man making a profit from people paying to bring their art to the desert. And if the $100k+ salary I've heard about is true (and it might not be, but I do know people who know people working directly with him), he's making much more than the basic "I need to be able to pay my bills if I'm to spend all my time organizing this event this year." Again, cos it's a for-profit LLC.

No, and Larry Harvey isn't putting out a call for artists to come out and put up huge installations for free, they are choosing to go there purely of their own interests. I suppose it would be as if Amanda Palmer's fans started asking "Oh hey btw can I bring my instrument and play backup for you?" vs the current situation, which changes the ethics. I guess I was wondering if despite that, is it morally okay for Larry Harvey to be making that extra profit, but perhaps I just answered my own question. I just feel like if you take the situation specific details away, you end up with two situations in which a person is making a profit by way of artists going out of their way to perform/showcase their art/etc for free. It was argued that Amanda was taking advantage of her fans, can it be argued that Harvey is taking advantage of the fervent dedication people have towards Burning Man?

@ Argos - yes, it can be so argued. That said, hundred grand a year off Burning Man? That's nothing. I could make ten times that, if I really tried and I'm so bad with money, I'M EXCELLENT. (If he was really trying to screw people out of money, he's doing a lousy job at it, is what I'm saying.)

Yeah, I know it seems like a lot when you are coming from the position of being just at the beginning of your serious earning years, and are not involved in the world of corporate or business professional aspirants, but 100k is a decent but unremarkable middle class salary. Especially if that's what you are pulling in after almost 10 years of essentially being CEO of your own startup.

Frankly, if he founder of burning man is only pulling 100k per year as personal income from it, that is indicative of shocking, almost mythological honesty.

@ joe.distort - again, depends upon where you live. $500k can get you a palatial spread in some parts of the country, but in Los Angles it could only get you a modest 2 bed room house under 1000 square feet.